Appeal No. 1997-1253
Application No. 08/165,430
The examiner indicates how he reads each of the
appealed claims on Bloomfield in the final rejection. With
respect to independent claims 1 and 7, which stand or fall
together [brief, page 5], appellant argues that the window
list 106 of Bloomfield does not display the depth control
object nor have the depth control function of the altering
step as recited in these claims [brief, pages 7-9]. The
examiner indicates that Figure 5 of Bloomfield demonstrates
the altering step of claim 1. We agree with appellant.
It is clear from Figure 5 of Bloomfield that the open
windows displayed in Window List window 106 are not arranged
in the order of depth as required by independent claims 1 and
7. Note that the desktop 100 shows a Reports-Tree View window
and a Reports-Setting window in front of and overlapping the
Reports-Details View window. In Window List window 106 (the
depth control object), however, the Details View item appears
above the Tree View item while it is below the Settings item.
Thus, the items listed in Window List window 106 of Bloomfield
are not correlated to the actual depth positions of the open
windows as required by claims 1 and 7. Note that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007